User talk:SuperSajuuk
Youmay template Looking for is some old redundant template that was barely used at all. I'll remove these 4 references it got and scrap it. SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:39, February 14, 2015 (UTC) *IMHO Youmay looks better. And it's more consistent with the rest of a website. Needed be we can alter the looks. It's a template after all. SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:44, February 14, 2015 (UTC) Merging articles Please, don't merge articles about glitches into the main game article. It's already waaay too long. We don't need even more information overload there. They warrant their own articles with links from the main game article, or if you really don't want to have them separate - merged them together into List of Bugs and Glitches, as it is for example in w:c:finalfantasy:List of Bugs and Glitches. SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:51, February 14, 2015 (UTC) :Sorry, but by this logic: no content warrants it's own articles. It's not redundant, it contains plenty of unique information, and there's more than enough of it to justify a separate article. As said: I'm cool with merging these two into one if you'd want to, as it was done in several other wikias, but they definitely shouldn't be in the main article about the game. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:01, February 14, 2015 (UTC) ::I did not revert any changes on you merging any articles. Also you being a sysop here doesn't mean that you have a right to remove or merge every single article you find "redundant" or "not needed" or "pointless". I always follow the rule of respecting existing content and other people's work, IMHO you should start doing the same. Despite of what you suggest - that your merge is something standard on other wikias - it's not. I can find you dozens of examples where wikias write articles on glitches in specific games, heck: there are wikias writing articles on separate glitches, one by one. The vision you have and one that you used on other wikias isn't some universal truth that everyone need to apply to every single wikia. This wikia is different than those you were a sysop in till now - get used to that. Some random examples: w:c:halo:Category:Halo:_Reach_Glitches, w:c:supersmashbros:Category:Glitches, w:c:halo:Glitches, w:c:Zelda:Category:Glitches, w:c:pokemon:Glitches, w:c:residentevil:Category:Glitches, w:c:starbound:Glitch, w:c:runescape:Glitch, w:c:gta:Glitches, w:c:callofduty:Glitches, should I keep on going? The way you are doing things is not universally better than the way everyone else in all of these wikias are doing things. In general we should respect existing content and fix major problems instead of making things in the way we like, which is exactly what you are doing. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:19, February 14, 2015 (UTC) :::Fanon Policy is here: and it's not "do not put fanon here" like you are saying. :::Nearly all of the articles you ever marked for deletion were meaningful. They might not be meaningful for you, but if you want binary, objective fact: they were articles written in an encyclopedic style containing content not violating any of the existing Encyclopedia Hiigara polices, manual of style or requirements. Perhaps you should try to get more objective view than trying to enforce personal polices of what's meaningful and what's not for you. You don't even bother to explain why it's not meaningful, as if "pointless" or "meaningless" would be some keyword opening all locks. It is not, never will be. If I'm about to remove something someone spend hours writing up - I'd better have a good reason doing so. If you disagree with me or someone else removing your delete or merge request for the article - provide good, solid reason for why content should be removed or moved. Repeating the same few keywords over and over again does not help anyone, and it only makes you feel frustrated. :::Why you should be respectful to the content? Because people put work into writing it, for one reason. You might not understand what it is about, or why it got here, for another. None of the content mentioned violated any of the polices nor manual of style, for the next one. And finally, perhaps most importantly: You have a very clear vision for content you'd like to take care of: canon in-universe texts, which is a largest portion of EH, but not the only portion of it, never was, therefore you must understand that not everyone agree with your sole vision of the encyclopedia content. This is a wiki run by the fans for the fans. Not a Wiki run by Sajuuk for Sajuuk. You see the difference? There were dozens of fans writing articles related to the Homeworld universe that go above and beyond your sole vision of in-universe canon content - you don't have to like it, just like I don't have to like Wikipedia having articles related to "aliens" and other made-up nonsense, yet I accept it is there, and I move along to the stuff that matter most to me - and from your latest posts I had a very strong impression that what is most important for you is purifying canon articles from fanon content, not taking care of articles like Glitches of the Original Homeworld‎‎ which are completely out of scope from anything concrete you ever mentioned in our initial discussion. :::I'm not trying to pick and choose any polices. There is no policy on merging articles at the moment, and in case of deletion policy - none of your requests stood against . And as you see in the recent changes log - I agreed with you on numerous instances, and went ahead doing stuff you told us that you will be doing here - getting rid of fanon where it collides with canon - which is fully supported by the and something I thought we're all here to do. I even made a compromise and stepped back ignoring several points of Fanon policy - the real one, not the one you just made up - and removed articles storing fanon content separately to help out with the problems you complained about. And now you're telling me that I'm pick and choosing polices. Seriously? :::To my surprise though I see you doing relatively little in terms of fixing the major problem of fanon content in canon articles, instead insisting on using template A instead of template B because you find it to stand out less (which again, isn't nearly half as big problem as you're trying to make it - it's a template, templates can be edited, new features can be added, etc. That's what templates are for.), removing 2 articles and put the content of them into other articles, because you find it "utterly redundant" insisting that "just about every other wiki" does that, and when provided with numerous examples of wikis doing stuff exactly as it is done here, you find it "amateurish" even though some of the wikis provided had over 10 000 articles and were anything but "amateurish". :::Stuff like makes me think you are here to change things you personally don't like, instead of fixing real issues that everyone agree on. We have much bigger and more important problems than wasting time changing dozens of articles to have template you like more, or moving content from articles into other articles that you like more, because you find that to improve the wiki. That merger attempt does not improve anything. It just makes stuff look in the way you like. Other people don't, as I illustrated with numerous links to other wikias doing it as it was done here or in the alternative solution I proposed in a hope of finding a compromise solution that would meet us half way. But you choose to reject even that compromise and instead insist of having stuff made your way. :::I would prefer we'd focus on our major task: Removing fanon from articles about canon content (again: ) and fixing templates and infoboxes - which was something I and Zeta were supposed to move through, but you offered to go through infoboxes yourself, so I stepped back, try to wait till you're finished with at least one of them to your liking, so that I could keep everything consistent. :::Priorities man. I don't like the looks of your infobox at all, it's too simplistic, too harsh, and doesn't look like anything else on the encyclopedia nor anything remotely related to Homeworld, yet I don't go over every single edit you make to it because, again: there are higher priority things to do and instead of arguing over the template. I would prefer to have it done and get on to the stuff that matters most. SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:48, February 14, 2015 (UTC) ::::Policy is a policy :) (as in: whole it's entirety, not just the golden rule). I am really trying to be reasonable, but there's only as much as I can do if you even refuse to deal with my wall of text after writing your own wall of text. I try finding compromises, but you reject even them. You must try to adjust instead of having everyone around adjust to your way of doing things. I'd very, very much like you to be here with us and get on going with the high priority stuff, just like I'm interesting with improving this place, but I am strongly against changing stuff just for the sake of changing stuff - which is what I tried to show you in a wall of text above. You had great a introduction focusing on a true priorities, real problems, but somehow I don't see that being brought to life yet. Through I'd love to be proven wrong and love to see you running through this fanon content in canon articles like it deserves to be run through! SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:10, February 14, 2015 (UTC) :::::Of course. I understand. Hope you'll have a great weekend other than our disagreement here. SkywalkerPL (talk) 18:50, February 14, 2015 (UTC) Remastered article No problem! If you want to fold the information into the original game articles that's okay by me. However, I think there is a strong argument for keeping the Remastered article separate for two reasons in particualr: the use of mods, which will use the remastered version of the game (so there will be mods for HW1, HW2 and Remastered) and the unified multiplayer mode, which will be exclusive only to the Remastered version. Plus it's somewhere we can put up more information about the new items in the Remastered Collector's Edition, particularly the new lore/art book.--Werthead (talk) 18:15, February 18, 2015 (UTC)